hibs.net Messageboard

Page 42 of 49 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast
Results 1,231 to 1,260 of 1452
  1. #1231
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    47
    Posts
    17,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The gap between rich and poor interests me less than the fact that there are people in this country who, despite their best efforts, are on the breadline.

    Wage caps, ie stopping people becoming excessively rich, would do nothing to help the poor. Sure the gap might fractionally reduce, but folk in poverty would still be in poverty.

    I have no problem with changing the tax regime for the highest earners, but suggesting that they're not allowed to earn more than X smacks of the politics of envy.

    I am interested in the basic income idea, but I don't know enough about it yet.
    Theres nothing about the maximum wage that makes it more symptomatic of 'the politics of envy' more than any sort of taxation that targets the super rich. Is a 60% tax rate 'the politics of envy'?

    Why do you think a maximum wage 'do nothing to help the poor'? In 2009 a couple of LSE professors published a book called The Spirit Level demonstrating that there was a direct correlation between reducing the gap between rich and poor and societal gains in health, education, happiness indicators etc affecting all strata of society, rich and poor. The Spirit Levels findings were taken on board and referenced by Milibands Labour and the Tories at the last election, so its not the preserve of any one political point of view. In simple terms, you need to narrow the gap '(reduce relative poverty) before you can even think about reducing absolute poverty. A maximum wage is a mechanism to achieve this aim. Assuming its an aim you consider worth supporting.

    Your normal gripe with Corbyn is that he's not targeting issues that the public care about. But polling evidence shows there is public revulsion to excessive boardroom pay levels. By saying that Govt contracts will only be offered to companies that have a handle on boardroom pay levels (the 20:1 policy)he is at least focusing on an issue that the apparently public care about. As he did with the NHS and social care for the elderly, which the Tories are weak on.


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #1232
    @hibs.net private member Hibernia&Alba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ma bit
    Posts
    8,676
    I think I'd prefer progressive taxation to a maximum wage which the very rich would get around via an army of tax experts, financial advisors and lawyers.

    In 1933 President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a maximum wage. When faced with a revolt by the super rich, who screamed communism, he struck a compromise: a top marginal income tax rate of 94%. Close the crazy tax loopholes and enforce the law in a progressive tax system. Introduce a REAL living wage for all.
    HIBERNIAN FC - ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY SINCE 1875

  4. #1233
    Coaching Staff One Day Soon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In hope
    Age
    53
    Posts
    5,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yeah, it's me and my ad hominem attacks,right enough.

    What's ad hominem about it? I'm criticising his failure to articulate a clear vision. That's a core part of leadership and he's failing to deliver. He was elected to lead the party but he isn't doing so.

    That's notwithstanding his absolute failure to hold the Tories to account over the crisis in the NHS.

    Corbyn might help soothe the fevered brows of those who think that the first priority of government should be to try Tony Blair for the Iraq War but here and now, in the real world and in 2017, Corbyn is failing the Labour Party.

    It's telling that even McCluskey is distancing himself. Corbyn has taken a lend of the party his whole parliamentary career. Perhaps it's not too late for him to do the decent thing and resign. Then maybe we can move the party on from self-indulgent navel-gazing and start acting like a genuine Opposition and try to convince the electorate that there is a potential Government in waiting there.

    And yes, 1970s tropes is what we get from him. I note you just dismiss it as Tory cliches rather than articulating the compelling and plausible policy vision Corbyn has been repeating.

    But then he would have to have been repeating a compelling and plausible policy vision wouldn't he? and we both know he has not.

    He's not a leader and he's never been loyal to the Party that he was happy to use for his posturing self-aggrandisement. Time for him to give it up before he does any more damage to the movement.

    Outstanding post.

    Jeremy Corbyn, for when a political party really just does not give a FF***KK about being in Government any more.
    Last edited by One Day Soon; 11-01-2017 at 02:02 PM.

  5. #1234
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    47
    Posts
    17,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think I'd prefer progressive taxation to a maximum wage which the very rich would get around via an army of tax experts, financial advisors and lawyers.

    In 1933 President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a maximum wage. When faced with a revolt by the super rich, who screamed communism, he struck a compromise: a top marginal income tax rate of 94%. Close the crazy tax loopholes and enforce the law in a progressive tax system. Introduce a REAL living wage for all.
    Its not a case of and/or. A belief in progressive taxation is surely self evident if you want to call yourself left of centre in any meaningful sense. I took that as read. A maximum wage isn't going to have the same impact in a fiscal sense as increasing the top rate, but it has importance for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Why should organisations receive contracts for government work when their directors are paying themselves obscene sums while the rest of the workforce are paid close to the living wage?

    I'm glad it's actually being debated nationally.

  6. #1235
    @hibs.net private member Hibernia&Alba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ma bit
    Posts
    8,676
    Quote Originally Posted by hibsbollah View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Its not a case of and/or. A belief in progressive taxation is surely self evident if you want to call yourself left of centre in any meaningful sense. I took that as read. A maximum wage isn't going to have the same impact in a fiscal sense as increasing the top rate, but it has importance for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Why should organisations receive contracts for government work when their directors are paying themselves obscene sums while the rest of the workforce are paid close to the living wage?

    I'm glad it's actually being debated nationally.
    I think those of us who are on the left need to be canny with strategy. In principle I'd support a maximum wage, but the Tories and their friends in the press would have a field day with it. It would be easy to portray the policy as punitive and counterproductive. Furthermore, those it applied to would find ways of bypassing it. Progressive taxation is easier to argue for on the basis of fairness. Multi-millionaires and billionaires must be asked to pay much more than a maximum of 45% income tax. On anything above, say, 1 million per annum, a marginal rate of 80 or 90% is surely reasonable? Even in America, the supposed home of low taxation, it was done for decades. The greatest expansion of economic growth and prosperity in America and Britain - the post war boom - happened under very progressive taxation regimes. The right like to talk about equality of opportunity, but that's only possible within more egalitarian societies. in 2017 the two major factors which determine one's chances in life are the level of the mother's education and postcode: that is unacceptable. When a small number of very wealthy individuals can buy the best of everything whilst the majority face cuts, there can't be equality of opportunity. I think arguments for progressive taxation on the basis of fairness would be more successful than a combined maximum wage and progressive taxation strategy which the right would use to spread fear. We need the first step of a fair taxation system before we can think about maximum wage, IMHO.
    Last edited by Hibernia&Alba; 11-01-2017 at 05:50 PM.
    HIBERNIAN FC - ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY SINCE 1875

  7. #1236
    Coaching Staff Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    31,740
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned 1,789.68!



  8. #1237
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    47
    Posts
    17,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think those of us who are on the left need to be canny with strategy. In principle I'd support a maximum wage, but the Tories and their friends in the press would have a field day with it. It would be easy to portray the policy as punitive and counterproductive. Furthermore, those it applied to would find ways of bypassing it. Progressive taxation is easier to argue for on the basis of fairness. Multi-millionaires and billionaires must be asked to pay much more than a maximum of 45% income tax. On anything above, say, 1 million per annum, a marginal rate of 80 or 90% is surely reasonable? Even in America, the supposed home of low taxation, it was done for decades. The greatest expansion of economic growth and prosperity in America and Britain - the post war boom - happened under very progressive taxation regimes. The right like to talk about equality of opportunity, but that's only possible within more egalitarian societies. in 2017 the two major factors which determine one's chances in life are the level of the mother's education and postcode: that is unacceptable. When a small number of very wealthy systems can buy the best of everything whilst the majority face cuts, there can't be equality of opportunity. I think arguments for progressive taxation on the basis of fairness would be more successful than a maximum wage and progressive taxation strategy which the right would use to spread fear. We need the first step of a fair taxation system before we can think about maximum wage, IMHO.
    I dont disagree with a lot of that, if an egalitarian society is the outcome how you get there isn't as important.

    You worry that 'the tories and their friends in the press would have a field day' with the maximum wage. Unfortunately, they would have a field day with a a marginal rate of 80-90% as well, probably more so! The notion that Murdoch in particular or the rest of the media in general is ever going to present Labour policies in a good light is unfortunately a bit nave.

  9. #1238
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    8,053
    80-90% tax rates are a ridiculous concept that really wouldn't work anyway and thats before you consider the moral argument of who the hell the state is that thinks it has the right to take 90% of a successful persons earnings (no matter how much they earn)

    Excessive exec pay is a real issue though but you have to ask why that's the case...as ever a lot of it comes down to unintended consequences of legislation. Rules designed to align exec pay to performance have merely had the effect of inflating pay at those levels add in the rules on remuneration voting and the rise of shareholdings being held in nominee accounts and you have a right mess.

  10. #1239
    @hibs.net private member Hibernia&Alba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ma bit
    Posts
    8,676
    Quote Originally Posted by SiMar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    80-90% tax rates are a ridiculous concept that really wouldn't work anyway and thats before you consider the moral argument of who the hell the state is that thinks it has the right to take 90% of a successful persons earnings (no matter how much they earn)

    Excessive exec pay is a real issue though but you have to ask why that's the case...as ever a lot of it comes down to unintended consequences of legislation. Rules designed to align exec pay to performance have merely had the effect of inflating pay at those levels add in the rules on remuneration voting and the rise of shareholdings being held in nominee accounts and you have a right mess.

    This depends upon what you mean by a 'successful person'. Brain surgeons, university professors and nuclear physicists, for example, are all very high achievers, but they aren't multi-millionaires or billionaires. We mustn't fall into the trap of believing that money is how we judge success and human worth. Some of the highest income earners are not particularly brilliant but are the beneficiaries of supply and demand; but that isn't the only method of gauging success. It's one instrument that determines allocation, but is but part of the equation. We mustn't think markets provide a complete answer to the issue of provision and society. Once you reject the idea that the market, supply and demand, is the basis for organisation of society and how we should rewarded human effort, then the natural question is what should we do instead?

    Market forces reward those who can sell large numbers of product, but that's only one measure of value. The brain surgeon has nothing to sell: there is no demand for brain surgery as the latest fad or convenience, so the market won't reward the brain surgeon as it does, say, the inventor of the paper clip. But who is the more successful? The market says the inventor of the paper clip deserves a greater allocation of resources than the brain surgeon - I happen to disagree.

    Market forces often rewards the trivial greatest, as there is demand for throwaway consumer goods. I think it's a blunt instrument in the full calculation of an individual's worth. It rewards a minority greatly whilst restricting the choices of employees who must sell their labour to receive an allocation of resources. How many millions are forced to take jobs they hate, as there is no alternative in the system of demand and supply? For the majority there is a restriction or an absence of freedom. Capital, the 'successful' as expressed by market forces, wants that labour as cheaply as possible and with the maximum surplus value in return i.e. profit. The moment we view each other as economic units we dehumanise each other; and, furthermore, it isn't democratic. The beneficiaries of supply and demand have complete control over the survival of those they employ under that system of society. They decide who should receive an income and who shouldn't; whose family should eat and whose shouldn't.

    For 35 years we've had a huge redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, which at the same time has undermined democracy.

    So we need to think about how we define success and the value of human beings. Supply and demand isn't a panacea which always allocates justly and which should be accepted as axiomatic. Money isn't the only way we can determine how we live. It's a man made system, not a law of nature. So which men (and women) does it benefit and at whose expense?
    Last edited by Hibernia&Alba; 11-01-2017 at 06:00 PM.
    HIBERNIAN FC - ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY SINCE 1875

  11. #1240
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    47
    Posts
    17,538
    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...imum-pay-panel

    Some interesting points in the link above about maximum pay, including examples where it is in place right now.

  12. #1241
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    8,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This depends upon what you mean by a 'successful person'. Brain surgeons, university professors and nuclear physicists, for example, are all very high achievers, but they aren't multi-millionaires or billionaires. We mustn't fall into the trap of believing that money is how we judge success and human worth. Some of the highest income earners are not particularly brilliant but are the beneficiaries of supply and demand; but that isn't the only method of gauging success. It's one instrument that determines allocation, but is but part of the equation. We mustn't think markets provide a complete answer to the issue of provision and society. Once you reject the idea that the market, supply and demand, is the basis for organisation of society and how we should rewarded human effort, then the natural question is what should we do instead?

    Market forces reward those who can sell large numbers of product, but that's only one measure of value. The brain surgeon has nothing to sell: there is no demand for brain surgery as the latest fad or convenience, so the market won't reward the brain surgeon as it does, say, the inventor of the paper clip. But who is the more successful? The market says the inventor of the paper clip deserves a greater allocation of resources than the brain surgeon - I happen to disagree.

    Market forces often rewards the trivial greatest, as there is demand for throwaway consumer goods. I think it's a blunt instrument in the full calculation of an individual's worth. It rewards a minority greatly whilst restricting the choices of employees who must sell their labour to receive an allocation of resources. How many millions are forced to take jobs they hate, as there is no alternative in the system of demand and supply? For the majority there is a restriction or an absence of freedom. Capital, the 'successful' as expressed by market forces, wants that labour as cheaply as possible and with the maximum surplus value in return i.e. profit. The moment we view each other as economic units we dehumanise each other; and, furthermore, it isn't democratic. The beneficiaries of supply and demand have complete control over the survival of those they employ under that system of society. They decide who should receive an income and who shouldn't; whose family should eat and whose shouldn't.

    For 35 years we've had a huge redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, which at the same time has undermined democracy.

    So we need to think about how we define success and the value of human beings. Supply and demand isn't a panacea which always allocates justly and which should be accepted as axiomatic. Money isn't the only way we can determine how we live. It's a man made system, not a law of nature. So which men (and women) does it benefit and at whose expense?
    Fair points and I should have added 'from an income perspective' after 'successful'! Success can be measured in many ways and as we all know money doesn't bring happiness!

    It is interesting though to note that although the rich have got richer they also pay more of a percentage of total income tax than they have ever before so on one hand you can say the gap has increased but on the other hand the burden of funding the state has also shifted dramatically up the scale.

    State intervention in terms of salary caps and maximum ratios is not something I'm ever going to advocate as I'm sure that no matter how well intentioned the unforeseen consequences will simply mean it won't work. Im also fundamentally opposed to the state deciding what people can and can't earn.

    I certainly agree executive pay is out of control but quite how the genie is put back in the bottle on a global scale I'm not sure but there is clearly scope for reviewing the ridiculous share option schemes that most seem to receive in lieu of salaries and revisiting the regulations that have encouraged the monumental increase in the first place!

    Finally I also think we have to be pragmatic in that just focussing on the rich will get us no where...there also needs to be a serious reevaluation and reeducation of how wealth is created. Simply capping top earners or taxing silly amounts like 80% of income will do nothing to make the nation wealthier nor do I think it would do much for general living standards. There may be an argument for it to be a small part of a much bigger change but I don't see many plans for anything beyond the headlines of capping and taxing that would fundamentally change people's lot.

  13. #1242
    @hibs.net private member Hibernia&Alba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ma bit
    Posts
    8,676
    Quote Originally Posted by SiMar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Fair points and I should have added 'from an income perspective' after 'successful'! Success can be measured in many ways and as we all know money doesn't bring happiness!

    It is interesting though to note that although the rich have got richer they also pay more of a percentage of total income tax than they have ever before so on one hand you can say the gap has increased but on the other hand the burden of funding the state has also shifted dramatically up the scale.


    State intervention in terms of salary caps and maximum ratios is not something I'm ever going to advocate as I'm sure that no matter how well intentioned the unforeseen consequences will simply mean it won't work. Im also fundamentally opposed to the state deciding what people can and can't earn.

    I certainly agree executive pay is out of control but quite how the genie is put back in the bottle on a global scale I'm not sure but there is clearly scope for reviewing the ridiculous share option schemes that most seem to receive in lieu of salaries and revisiting the regulations that have encouraged the monumental increase in the first place!

    Finally I also think we have to be pragmatic in that just focussing on the rich will get us no where...there also needs to be a serious reevaluation and reeducation of how wealth is created. Simply capping top earners or taxing silly amounts like 80% of income will do nothing to make the nation wealthier nor do I think it would do much for general living standards. There may be an argument for it to be a small part of a much bigger change but I don't see many plans for anything beyond the headlines of capping and taxing that would fundamentally change people's lot.
    But that's because they take far more of the national income now. Isn't it the case, for example, that the richest 60 people in the world have the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion? Of course they're going to pay a higher proportion of the TOTAL take overall, when the richest few take such a huge share of income. But as a share of their own income (not the overall amount of taxation paid) top earners pay much less. Obviously somebody paying 45% top income rate is going to paying a lesser proportion of their income than if they were paying 60%. Since the monetarist formula began in 1980, the richer have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer, there's no question of that. The higher up the pay scale you are, the better you have done in real terms since Thatcherism. The market has become all - resources are allocated based upon buying and selling; but what of those who don't have a product to sell yet are highly skilled in their job? The allocation of resources based upon buying and selling cannot work for everybody, yet those who aren't trying to sell us anything but who provide vital goods and services are allocated less. Market forces only understand supply and demand; there isn't the required nuance of all human activity. Many things cannot be valued according to supply and demand.

    As for making the national wealthier, I would reiterate my point about the post war boom which occurred during the period of the most progressive taxation system in history. You can only have proper growth if all are participating - millions of people. Having an impoverished working class and debt laden middle class makes it impossible; billionaires don't buy a million televisions or a million cars. It requires the ability of all to participate.
    HIBERNIAN FC - ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY SINCE 1875

  14. #1243
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    8,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But that's because they take far more of the national income now. Isn't it the case, for example, that the richest 60 people in the world have the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion? Of course they're going to pay a higher proportion of the TOTAL take overall, when the richest few take such a huge share of income. But as a share of their own income (not the overall amount of taxation paid) top earners pay much less. Obviously somebody paying 45% top income rate is going to paying a lesser proportion of their income than if they were paying 60%. Since the monetarist formula began in 1980, the richer have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer, there's no question of that. The higher up the pay scale you are, the better you have done in real terms since Thatcherism. The market has become all - resources are allocated based upon buying and selling; but what of those who don't have a product to sell yet are highly skilled in their job? The allocation of resources based upon buying and selling cannot work for everybody, yet those who aren't trying to sell us anything but who provide vital goods and services are allocated less. Market forces only understand supply and demand; there isn't the required nuance of all human activity. Many things cannot be valued according to supply and demand.

    As for making the national wealthier, I would reiterate my point about the post war boom which occurred during the period of the most progressive taxation system in history. You can only have proper growth if all are participating - millions of people. Having an impoverished working class and debt laden middle class makes it impossible; billionaires don't buy a million televisions or a million cars. It requires the ability of all to participate.
    Thanks for the reply...I don't think we are that far apart really!

    Markets can create distortions but a market distorted by grand policies like salary caps and punitive tax rates (and current actions like QE) creates distortion upon distortions. Basically I don't trust governments and politicians to be able to intervene on such a scale successfully, I see no evidence in their existing policies, particularly in their tax rules that suggests they have an idea of how to create a more equal society in terms of wealth or incomes.

    Consumers have also been encouraged to borrow and borrow some more, all in an effort to 'support' the economy. Add in ruinous policies on housing and I begin to wonder if it is the 'free' market that is to blame or the constant meddling of governments.


    As for my point on income tax there is no doubt that there is effectively less and less people contributing more and more. It's not about the portion of income they are paying but the portion of the total tax take. At the same time the rich are being pilloried they are being relied on more and more. Successive governments have made the pool of net contributors smaller and smaller and done nothing to consider how that is sustainable in the long term.

    Anyway I'm not saying everything is rosey as it's not and agree wholeheartedly that a number of things are out of kilter, we maybe just diverge when it comes to proposed solutions or maybe as to what is at the root of the problems!

  15. #1244
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    47
    Posts
    17,538
    Last edited by hibsbollah; 12-01-2017 at 10:35 AM.

  16. #1245
    Coaching Staff Betty Boop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sunny Leith
    Posts
    8,244
    Quote Originally Posted by hibsbollah View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yea he's in his stride now. WIiped the floor with May. t

  17. #1246
    @hibs.net private member Hibernia&Alba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ma bit
    Posts
    8,676
    Quote Originally Posted by SiMar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Thanks for the reply...I don't think we are that far apart really!

    Markets can create distortions but a market distorted by grand policies like salary caps and punitive tax rates (and current actions like QE) creates distortion upon distortions. Basically I don't trust governments and politicians to be able to intervene on such a scale successfully, I see no evidence in their existing policies, particularly in their tax rules that suggests they have an idea of how to create a more equal society in terms of wealth or incomes.

    Consumers have also been encouraged to borrow and borrow some more, all in an effort to 'support' the economy. Add in ruinous policies on housing and I begin to wonder if it is the 'free' market that is to blame or the constant meddling of governments.


    As for my point on income tax there is no doubt that there is effectively less and less people contributing more and more. It's not about the portion of income they are paying but the portion of the total tax take
    . At the same time the rich are being pilloried they are being relied on more and more. Successive governments have made the pool of net contributors smaller and smaller and done nothing to consider how that is sustainable in the long term.

    Anyway I'm not saying everything is rosey as it's not and agree wholeheartedly that a number of things are out of kilter, we maybe just diverge when it comes to proposed solutions or maybe as to what is at the root of the problems!

    But again, that's because those at the top are earning massively more with each passing year, whereas income for the majority is either stagnant or falling. That's neoliberalism in action.
    HIBERNIAN FC - ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY SINCE 1875

  18. #1247
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    8,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But again, that's because those at the top are earning massively more with each passing year, whereas income for the majority is either stagnant or falling. That's neoliberalism in action.
    Hmm I don't think we are going to agree on this

    Due to tax policy (not income increases in one area of the population) over 40% of working age people in the U.K. now pay no income tax. In addition we now have a situation where more than half of UK households receive more in welfare and pensions than they pay in tax.

    On the flip side the fiscal drag at the 40% threshold and the pension tax relief changes means as few as 300,000 people are responsible for more than 25% of the tax income.

    That's not neoliberalism it's deliberate government policy.

    There is plenty of other stats that show the burden of paying income tax has been steadily shifted up the pay scale and in addition it's interesting to note that by the ONS stats the richest 5th of tax payers lose 23.5% of their income to direct taxation while the figure for the poorest 5th is only 9.7%. This somewhat explodes the myth that the tax system is favouring the rich, it takes more of their income and they pay a massive percentage of the total tax take compared to the size of the group.

    The real issue is not direct taxation but indirect taxation as this takes no account of the persons ability to pay. VAT is probably the biggest culprit here and these types of taxes are extremely punishing on the poorest 5th accounting for 28% of their income.

    So it's pretty clear to see that less and less people pay income tax and of those that do the few at the top are paying more and more of the total. Adding further taxes and caps etc is going to do nothing to relief the pressure on the poorest and may actually impact them negatively if the increased taxes or capped earnings actually result in a decrease of revenue from the very portion of tax payers that are so critical to the governments finances.

  19. #1248
    @hibs.net private member Mibbes Aye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,791
    Quote Originally Posted by hibsbollah View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Ah, the polls. You clearly follow the polls, as I do, so you probably also know that Labour went off the cliff after the 'chicken coup' of last summer. Prior to this, Labour under Corbyn was faring the same or slightly better than under Miliband. Somewhere between 3-7%back. Its there as public record. So when you look at the timeline it is a disunited Labour Party that the public are rejecting. Now you can blame Corbyn for the majority of Labour MPs revolting against his leadership, and against the membership. Many people do. There is another interpretation; that the architects of the coup itself are also responsible for the coup. Both for the shambles of the aftermath and the total absence of any sort of engagement with the membership of the Party since then. Its frankly pathetic for people in Labour to whinge 'Corbyn never showed Blair any loyalty, why should I show him any?'. Have some self respect. Loyalty isn't something that needs to be bought and paid for.

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/ar...ting-intention

    There are two realities that need to be confronted when understanding whats going on. 1. A majority of Labour MPs are opposed to the current leadership. 2. An overwhelming majority of Labour Party members are supportive of the current leadership. If you dont acknowledge both realities you come up with silly suggestions like 'Corbyn should do the decent thing and resign'.

    So by all means point out the polls dont look good for Labour. (although 7 points adrift on Dec 18th doesn't suggest a recovery by 2020-four years away! is impossible. And as we all know, the sight of John Curtis dragging himself to news studios after elections where polling got it spectacularly wrong again is becoming as familiar as a fart in a burrito house). Just apply some balance as to why and how we arrived where we are.
    I like it when you post something like people shouldn't refer to Corbyn being disloyal, because, erm, well you haven't really given a reason

    He happily took all the trappings that went with being a member of a large, well-resourced party but turned his nose up at following the whip hundreds of times. It's all a bit self-serving and hypocritical really, isn't it?

    You can't keep blaming the leadership challenge for the polls, it doesn't wash. If nothing else, there has been remarkable public unity since the last challenge. And while Corbyn won comfortably, both times, the fact remains that at both elections 40% of members didn't want him. Do you think that figure is higher or lower now?

    My issue with him is he is simply not a leader.

    You mentioned polls - you will know all the ones that specifically rate his competence as a leader, people's trust in him in a crisis etc etc. His figures are rank, aren't they? Not the figures of a man the country sees as a leader. You can't really blame anyone else for those.

    This lack of leadership has been writ large over the last week, with the rather botched reboot where he couldn't manage to articulate the same clear message on pay from what he said in the morning to what he said in the afternoon.

    Again though, as I've already said, it's on the NHS that his lack of leadership is weakest.

    For the last seven days the NHS in England has dominated the domestic news. Dominated in terms of the existential crisis it faces. Yet the public statement that brought the focus, that really skewered the government was the British Red Cross calling it a 'humanitarian crisis'.

    Corbyn didn't do anything at PMQs other than ride on the coattails of the Red Cross. They were the ones leading the opposition to the government, not the Leader of the Opposition.

    It's stuff like that which highlights just how ineffectual he actually is.
    There's only one thing better than a Hibs calendar and that's two Hibs calendars

  20. #1249
    @hibs.net private member Hibernia&Alba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ma bit
    Posts
    8,676
    Quote Originally Posted by SiMar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Hmm I don't think we are going to agree on this

    Due to tax policy (not income increases in one area of the population) over 40% of working age people in the U.K. now pay no income tax. In addition we now have a situation where more than half of UK households receive more in welfare and pensions than they pay in tax.

    On the flip side the fiscal drag at the 40% threshold and the pension tax relief changes means as few as 300,000 people are responsible for more than 25% of the tax income.

    That's not neoliberalism it's deliberate government policy.

    There is plenty of other stats that show the burden of paying income tax has been steadily shifted up the pay scale and in addition it's interesting to note that by the ONS stats the richest 5th of tax payers lose 23.5% of their income to direct taxation while the figure for the poorest 5th is only 9.7%. This somewhat explodes the myth that the tax system is favouring the rich, it takes more of their income and they pay a massive percentage of the total tax take compared to the size of the group.


    The real issue is not direct taxation but indirect taxation as this takes no account of the persons ability to pay. VAT is probably the biggest culprit here and these types of taxes are extremely punishing on the poorest 5th accounting for 28% of their income.

    So it's pretty clear to see that less and less people pay income tax and of those that do the few at the top are paying more and more of the total. Adding further taxes and caps etc is going to do nothing to relief the pressure on the poorest and may actually impact them negatively if the increased taxes or capped earnings actually result in a decrease of revenue from the very portion of tax payers that are so critical to the governments finances.

    The poorest don't earn enough to pay income tax, or at least only pay little, so that accounts for that. But why are the richest 20% of earners only paying 23.5% of their income in tax, when their earnings have rocketed in the last 35 years? The higher up the earnings scale, the faster their income has grown. What matters is inequality and the proportion of earnings each individual is contributing based upon their earnings. Inequality is growing all the time, and the poor are actually getting poorer again. IMHO, income tax is far too low at the top, and it's totally unacceptable in a society that is being severely damaged by the austerity agenda which has produced an explosion in homelessness, food banks and a crisis in the NHS. You cannot have equality of opportunity in a vastly unequal society, and the UK is one of the most unequal societies in the developed world. When you have a top 1% earning tens of millions per year and employing lawyers and accountants to pay only a fraction of the 45% top rate, something is wrong. I don't see how anyone who earns a seven figure salary every year could object a top marginal income tax rate of 80% or so. They wouldn't pay it on all their earnings but only on earnings beyond that required for a fantastic lifestyle. Half the world's population live on $1.50 per day; let's be reasonable here. This is a man made system of allocation of resources, which can be changed in favour of a more equitable distribution. We don't have to accept there's no alternative to mass poverty and great inequality.
    Last edited by Hibernia&Alba; 12-01-2017 at 05:17 PM.
    HIBERNIAN FC - ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY SINCE 1875

  21. #1250
    @hibs.net private member ronaldo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    8,343
    What is the point of the branch office, when the London office refuse to rubber stamp their ideas.

    https://t.co/0DBxIrVsBF

    Kezia would be better getting back into her box it seems.

  22. #1251
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    47
    Posts
    17,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I like it when you post something like people shouldn't refer to Corbyn being disloyal, because, erm, well you haven't really given a reason

    He happily took all the trappings that went with being a member of a large, well-resourced party but turned his nose up at following the whip hundreds of times. It's all a bit self-serving and hypocritical really, isn't it?

    You can't keep blaming the leadership challenge for the polls, it doesn't wash. If nothing else, there has been remarkable public unity since the last challenge. And while Corbyn won comfortably, both times, the fact remains that at both elections 40% of members didn't want him. Do you think that figure is higher or lower now?

    My issue with him is he is simply not a leader.

    You mentioned polls - you will know all the ones that specifically rate his competence as a leader, people's trust in him in a crisis etc etc. His figures are rank, aren't they? Not the figures of a man the country sees as a leader. You can't really blame anyone else for those.

    This lack of leadership has been writ large over the last week, with the rather botched reboot where he couldn't manage to articulate the same clear message on pay from what he said in the morning to what he said in the afternoon.

    Again though, as I've already said, it's on the NHS that his lack of leadership is weakest.

    For the last seven days the NHS in England has dominated the domestic news. Dominated in terms of the existential crisis it faces. Yet the public statement that brought the focus, that really skewered the government was the British Red Cross calling it a 'humanitarian crisis'.

    Corbyn didn't do anything at PMQs other than ride on the coattails of the Red Cross. They were the ones leading the opposition to the government, not the Leader of the Opposition.

    It's stuff like that which highlights just how ineffectual he actually is.
    You have said most of this already, and I have responded to most of it. Suffice it to say I think you will continue to filter out the positives and exacerbate the negatives, because it fits your conceptions. But pretending the Red Cross was in the dispatch box and not the Leader of the Opposition is a new one, I must admit.

  23. #1252
    @hibs.net private member Mibbes Aye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,791
    Quote Originally Posted by hibsbollah View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You have said most of this already, and I have responded to most of it. Suffice it to say I think you will continue to filter out the positives and exacerbate the negatives, because it fits your conceptions. But pretending the Red Cross was in the dispatch box and not the Leader of the Opposition is a new one, I must admit.
    They were well ahead of him and set the narrative with the term 'humanitarian crisis'.

    That became a clear message, communicated widely, and forced the government to respond.

    That's what a competent leader could, should and would do.
    There's only one thing better than a Hibs calendar and that's two Hibs calendars

  24. #1253
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    47
    Posts
    17,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They were well ahead of him and set the narrative with the term 'humanitarian crisis'.

    That became a clear message, communicated widely, and forced the government to respond.

    That's what a competent leader could, should and would do.
    He's been successfully targeting her on the NHS for months, here's a link from just one such occasion on 30/11.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2016/nov/30/may-and-corbyn-clash-over-nhs-and-social-care-funding-at-pmqs-video-highlights

    The Red Cross statement was incendiary because it was the Red Cross making it, and rightly so. But the opposition has hardly been ignoring the crisis prior to this statement, quite the opposite.

  25. #1254
    Tonight's Corbyn policy on the hoof is to throw poor old Kezia and her "new act of union" under a bus.

    He might be a nice guy with some interesting ideas* but a leader? Not so much.


    * much like poor old Kezia in fact, only with interesting ideas.

  26. #1255
    Coaching Staff steakbake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Gate 38
    Posts
    7,632
    Not that I think he's been given a fair crack,with a clearly biased media and a political class that have no time for even the slightest radicalism, it really is time for Corbyn to end this s**tshow.

    Dugdale also woefully out of her depth - continually. Seems a decent enough person but Sturgeon and Davidson are miles ahead. She's no match for them.

  27. #1256
    Coaching Staff Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    31,740
    Quote Originally Posted by steakbake View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Not that I think he's been given a fair crack,with a clearly biased media and a political class that have no time for even the slightest radicalism, it really is time for Corbyn to end this s**tshow.

    Dugdale also woefully out of her depth - continually. Seems a decent enough person but Sturgeon and Davidson are miles ahead. She's no match for them.
    He was never, ever going to get a fair crack at it. That's one of the reasons folk have been saying from the outset, that he's unelectable.

    It's like being warned that you'll get soaked if you go out without a coat on, but you do so anyway and when you do get soaked, you say "I only got soaked because it was raining".
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned 1,789.68!



  28. #1257
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    47
    Posts
    17,538

  29. #1258
    Coaching Staff Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    31,740
    Quote Originally Posted by hibsbollah View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The movement?
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned 1,789.68!



  30. #1259
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    47
    Posts
    17,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The movement?
    The Labour Movement? Google it if you're unfamiliar with the concept.

  31. #1260
    Coaching Staff Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    31,740
    Quote Originally Posted by hibsbollah View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The Labour Movement? Google it if you're unfamiliar with the concept.
    The movement these days, if it ever really existed, is going in entirely the opposite direction to the one that I used to pin my hopes upon, and thought I was part of, in the 70s and 80s.

    The movement, in the way you revere it, doesnt exist.
    Last edited by Hibbyradge; 13-01-2017 at 09:46 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2012 All Rights Reserved